Talk:Carl Weiss

Kiwanis International
Weiss may have been a member of a Kiwanis Club, and the Club was a member of Kiwanis International, but neither Weiss nor any other individual could have been a member of Kiwanis International.Alexander Springstea (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

How Many Times Was This Man Shot?
According to the article on Huey Long, "Long's bodyguards returned fire, hitting Weiss 30 times and killing him." In this article it states "Weiss was hit with sixty-two bullets and died at the scene." Neither number is cited with any source. Which is it? Himeyuri (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The medical examiner stopped counting after 62 bullets, but there may have been more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.225.39 (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The Question
Ok ok, we need the question addressed-- was he Jewish or part Jewish?. Yes, yes-- Catholic High School, Catholic Burial. But was he half Jewish, quarter Jewish? Is it so terrible to say he looked quite Jewish? (see here). Why my interest ? Well I happen to be both Jewish and Arab (among other things) and, yes, I've been at war with myself basically from adolescence on. So I'm just almost automatically interested in partial Jews in America... Note: I love discussing race and ethnicity, unlike anyone I know. I believe race/ethnicity determines much individual behavior, no matter how much well-meaning liberals wish it were otherwise (I salute them, really I do-- but truth comes first)... So was he part Jewish? JDG 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC) A paternal ancestor was Jewish. The family had long since converted to Roman Catholicism. Dr. Carl Austin Weiss was devout. He also was very upset by European fascist anti-semitism, especially after an encounter with Mussolini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob3 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 12/10/1997 Washington Post article "An Unusual Southern Legacy" says he was Jewish. Heathcliff (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok 2601:646:8B00:4BF0:95E3:2557:7C2D:BFC7 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Photo?
Is there any reason why the photo of the late doctor was removed; copyright violation? Otherwise, it may be of benefit.

No
He was not. Ethnic Germans planted early on in the south. His middle name was Austin, about as common as a Jew named Keith. It is doubtfull that the Pavey family would have accepted his being Jewish. Kaltenborn
 * No, mister. The Pavey family was more concerned if he was rich or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.184.225 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Weiss was a Catholic, and the only Jewish connection would be from his grandfather. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.225.39 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Library
Has this information about Long: "Corrupt governor of Louisiana. Ran the state as his private fiefdom." This article makes him look like a pretty flower...

the other side
There are two sides to every story. Our government has always had an effective way of dealing with those who were proving themselves dangerous. The eastern establishment was not going to let a good old boy run anything beyond his own backyard...Thank You. Margaret Suckley-beauty of the North............

Tulane Medical School?
I've always been under the impression that Dr. Weiss graduated from the Tulane Medical School?

Weiss' Jewish Heritage
It's necessary to include that Carl Weiss was born Jewish and converted to Catholicism. I'm not sure why this biographical information is neglected in the bio section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajokie (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just want to post a reply here to mention that ancestry.com is being used as a source for this information and I'm not sure that that is appropriate as it's user generated. Standlaunchpad (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Weiss didn't convert, his father was Catholic too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.225.39 (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is indicative of him not being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a source that says that Weiss was Catholic:
 * http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.708924
 * Trump, Sanders and Echoes of 1930s Populism
 * Former Louisiana Governor Huey Long was like a Bernie Sanders-Donald Trump hybrid: a hero of the working man but also a vindictive, populist demagogue.
 * Chemi Shalev
 * Mar 15, 2016 2:29 PM
 * "His assassin’s name was Carl Weiss, a fact that has allowed generations of anti-Semites to describe the killing as a Jewish plot, even though Weiss was born and raised a Catholic."
 * If his family was Jewish, I would be willing to put that in, but it would have to be documented by a reliable source, not just some book on Google Books. See WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

He was a jew. This article attempts to lie by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6A1A:4C00:987:5739:D934:467E (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Carl Weiss's grandparents were Carl T. Weiss, Josephine Schroeder, Leon George Louis Maine, and Laura "Laurena" Costello. It doesn't appear that any of them were Jewish. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'm going to repost my previous post because I replied in the wrong section. I just want to post a reply here to mention that ancestry.com is being used as a source for this information and I'm not sure that that is appropriate as it's user generated. I also want to add that find a grave should also not be used in the article for the same reason afaik. Maybe we should find a better source for this information? Standlaunchpad (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Framed?
The opening sentence identifies him as the "fall guy", and he is referenced explicitly as "framed" later on. Unless there is some justification for this, I believe this is a case of bias making it through, since the rest of the article never positively identifies him as framed or as a scapegoat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.53.236 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of Long listed by insurance company as "accidental"?
Under "Family denials", the article states: "Weiss claims without evidence that the insurance company reported that Long's death was "accidental." ".

The report here was reputedly prepared by one of the insurance company's investigators:

If it's genuine, would that not be the evidence for Weiss' claim? --Chris Keating (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * the report was prepared by someone who was not there and who does not claim to have interviewed any witnesses. He had not read the elaborate testimony the witnesses  gave. It cites "various sources" --and is full of anti-Long rumors and gossip on all sorts of unrelated issues of the sort that circulated wildly at the time. (the gossip mostly is about the reasons Dr Weiss had to kill Long. But the investigator gets those wrong, eg the Pavy family never heard of the allegation that Long said Dr Pavy had black blood--Williams p 870.) the  In any case this is a controversial "primary source" of the sort that Wikipedia warns against. Our article is based on much more advanced scholarship (by people like T Harry Williams).  Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable claim of certainty.
The certainty with which this article and the article on Long endorse Weiss' conviction is simply not an option the historical record can deliver.

Nor is any certainty contained in the quotation: "no one had taken it very seriously, for unless all the witnesses to the event were lying or mistaken...." The author is merely citing a consensus he found and pointing to everyone's reliance on the accuracy of witnesses, a subject he raises because it is the obvious contingency on which Dr. Weiss' posthumous conviction by the press and a hostile state government rests.

There actually is a high degree of reasonable doubt about the motives of witness and about the actual events, and that fact should not be omitted.

As a matter of pure form, the assertion that historians all agree about some event doesn't fit the intellectual enterprise that is historiography.

Thus the opening sentence of this article is inaccurate. The article has a tone of railroading Dr. Weiss throughout, making the suspicion that he really was railroaded seem credible. Macdust (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
 * we let the reliable secondary sources make the historical decisions. Wikipedia simply reports them. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

1. "Wikipedia" is not some some separate party for whom you are authorized to speak to outsiders. 2. You do not reply to the substance of what I write. 3. This article does not "simply report" the reliable secondary sources. 4. Historiography does not result in "historical decisions." 5. The tone of railroading in your reply does not vindicate the tone of railroading in the article. Macdust (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * here at Wikipedia we start with the reliable secondary sources. Which are the ones you are using? Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia we refrain from pretending to speak for Wikipedia. We refrain from highhanded digs at other contributors. We reply to the substance of the issues they raise in the talk section.

I am using no sources not already cited in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdust (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

What does railroaded even mean? I think you are referring to bias, but Madcast, you need to look up "conformation bias" which is an actual academic term, as opposed to "railroaded". I just think that this article, having only accessed it today, is biased in favor of the subject, not the other way around. People talk about what the historical record allows or doesn't need to recognize that this man was recognized as the assassin by consensus of everyone who was near the actual shooting. Are there credible doubts that belong in this article? Absolutely there are, but they need to be sourced properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.120.153 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Implicated?
The use of the word "implicated" in the article introduction seems odd to me. For me the word refers to an indirect or minor role in a crime. I am not going into the rabbit hole of whether he was guilty or not. He is known as the person who is generally thought to be the killer. Maybe words like "accused" or "blamed" might be used instead.

--Óli Gneisti (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Theories ?
‘theories have arisen that Weiss did not actually murder Senator Long’.

Strictly speaking, such are not ‘theories’. Such are ‘hypotheses’. Are there truly more than one? They amount to no more than ex-post facto suggestions, in any case. Even merely opinions, and as such do not merit the word ‘theory’. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:E6:962C:81C1:843D (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)